[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Home]
Re: Epipenominal Qualia 1 - The knowledge Argument
- To: BUPS-DIS <BUPS-DIS@bups.org>
- Subject: Re: Epipenominal Qualia 1 - The knowledge Argument
- From: Felicity Graham <graham.felicity@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:21:17 +0100
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Mg0LkX42rnhJUWqGD05FZ7ImQuYKzlDIUQM4C8xBGlnuOMgDkGzpdAUMSUyCmVFJIdxlaMKdP0y39/bST8Nlz1W/Ik5bxhfRueXHzkqySYSL1dP6WuJYkO2pPNoofTELisY+yvRpbG92FqM6+YhLmjhoUV/Yfvcn2i7Zsw+zX2w=
- In-reply-to: <iopi7u.fj3log@webmail.saitch.net>
- References: <iopi7u.fj3log@webmail.saitch.net>
David,
1) How do you know the seeing and
experiencing of red MUST be included in any subset of facts that is
supposed to include all the physical facts about seeing red, unless you are happy to say the scientific
facts about red and the "what it is like to see red" are one and the
same, which cannot plausibly be said to be the case?
2) On what basis do you claim that seeing and experiencing
red
are the ONLY physical facts over say the hard scientific facts about
red, without a simple appropriation of the definition of 'physical'.
Felicity